A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 2Harlington School · Philosophy · Metaphysics of God

Arguments for the existence of God

No kind of argument gives you everything. Kind one: certain, but nothing new. Kind two: new, but never certain.

The
big
question

Before meeting a single argument for God's existence, can you say what would make ANY argument — deductive, inductive or abductive — worth believing?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The price line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

CERTAIN, BUT CLOSED · deduction only unpacks the premisesOPEN, BUT NOT CERTAIN · induction and abduction can be wrong, but can learn something new

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

This map lesson gives you the one toolkit — the argument lens — that every lesson in this unit will use on a different argument: deduction for the ontological, induction and abduction for the design, and deduction again for the cosmological.

◀ Refer back · The paradox of the stone; Euthyphro; free will
Does the idea of God hold together?

Unit 1 asked whether the idea of God makes sense. This lesson gives you the toolkit Unit 2 needs: how to test whether any argument proves God exists.

Retrieve: Recall your own verdict from the end of Unit 1. Keep it in mind — an idea that does not hold together could never be proved to exist, however good the argument's shape.
The big idea

Going from left to right, the arguments give up certainty and gain reach. Every argument in this unit makes that trade one way or the other. The lens does not tell you which trade is best — it tells you which trade a given argument has made.

Look ahead · The Ontological Argument ▶
Can God's existence be proved by thinking alone, with no appeal to experience?

Next lesson's argument is the unit's one deductive proof. Use today's two tests on it straight away: is it valid? Is it sound?

Prime: Predict, before next lesson: will a deductive argument for God be easier or harder to attack than an inductive one? Say where you would aim.
01

The lessons in this unit

4 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Spring 2 – Summer 1 · weeks 24–27. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 24

The toolkit for testing any proof of God's existence

Premise, conclusion, inference; deductive, inductive, abductive; validity, soundness, cogency; the argument lens.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 25

The Ontological Argument

Anselm's a priori proof; Gaunilo's Perfect Island; Kant on existence as not a predicate.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 26

The Design (Teleological) Argument

Cleanthes' and Paley's arguments from analogy; Swinburne's temporal order; Hume's objections; Darwin's alternative.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 27

The Cosmological Argument

The Kalam argument; Aquinas's three ways; Descartes and Leibniz; Hume and Russell's objections.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Three kinds of argument, side by side

A toolkit before a single argument for God But here is the one thing this lesson denies: that any kind of argument gives you everything. No argument can be certain AND tell you something new AND prove its own starting points. Every kind pays a price somewhere. This lesson teaches two kinds, then a third. Kind one is deduction: if the premises are true the conclusion MUST be true — but it only unpacks what was already there. Kind two is induction: it reaches past what you have seen — but it can be wrong even when every premise is true. Abduction is the third: it works backwards to the best explanation.

Kind one

Deductive arguments

If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true — but it tells you nothing the premises did not already say.
1Start with premises. If they are true, the conclusion MUST be true. You cannot accept the premises and then deny the conclusion.
2Valid is about the SHAPE only. The green cow has the same shape as Socrates, so it is just as valid — even with false premises.
3Sound adds truth to the shape: an argument is sound only when it is valid AND every premise is really true.
4The price: the conclusion only unpacks what was in the premises, and the argument cannot prove those premises. That is kind one.
Strength When an argument is valid AND sound, its conclusion is as certain as anything in philosophy gets. No other kind of argument can promise that.
Weakness Certainty costs you two things. You learn nothing new. And the argument gives you no way to check its own premises — and everything rests on them.
Kind two

Inductive arguments

From what you have seen to what you have not — it reaches something new, but it can never be certain.
1Start from what you have seen. Reach for what you have not. The conclusion goes further than the premises — that is how it tells you something new.
2Because it goes further, it can be wrong even when every premise is true. So no induction is ever valid. At best the conclusion is PROBABLY true.
3Strength comes in degrees. One goal while you were out of the room is a weak induction. A chain that rusts after every wet night is a strong one.
4A strong induction with true premises is called COGENT — induction's version of 'sound'. The price: new, but never certain. That is kind two.
Strength It is the only kind of argument that can take you somewhere NEW — past what you have already seen. Science and everyday life both run on it.
Weakness The conclusion can be false even when every premise is true. One white raven you never saw is enough to break it. So it can never be a proof.
The third way

Abductive arguments

Works backwards from something you have seen to the cause that would best explain it — never certain, only the best guess so far.
1Start from an effect you can see — the boiling kettle. Ask: what would best explain this? The answer is the cause: someone just turned it on.
2It uses what you already believe about how the world works. An ancient astronomer and a modern one both reason this way — and reach different 'best' explanations.
3Like induction, it can never guarantee its conclusion. A better explanation is always possible, even if nobody has thought of it yet.
4The real test is a comparison: not 'could this be the cause?' but 'is this BETTER than every other cause on the table?'
Strength It is how detectives, scientists and all of us actually think when something puzzling turns up. It does not need certainty to be useful.
Weakness It is only as good as the rivals it weighed. If the true cause was never on the table, it will confidently pick a wrong one.
04

Six claims, three ways to argue — what is the price?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put Socrates next to the ravens. Both have true premises and a conclusion. Say what is DIFFERENT: which one is certain? Which one tells you something new? Why can neither do both?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the kettle. Someone says: 'The best explanation is as good as a proof.' Do you agree? If not, what does that mean for a design argument that says God is the best explanation?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Say that deduction is the only kind that can PROVE anything. Is that a reason to trust the ontological argument more than the design argument? Or does it just move the fight to the premises?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Go through the six cases. For each one say: deduction, induction or abduction? Say the rule you used to decide. Then find the case that is hardest to place.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by a 'valid' deductive argument?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. One where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
  2. Note validity concerns form, not the actual truth of the premises.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline the difference between an inductive and an abductive argument.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Induction: from known cases to a wider generalisation, forward-reasoning
  2. Abduction: from an observed effect to its best explanation, backward-reasoning
  3. One example of each.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. Valid: the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, whatever their truth
  2. Sound: valid, and the premises are also true
  3. The green-cow example.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain the three parts of the 'argument lens', and why each is needed.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Foundations — are premises true
  2. Logical form — deductive/inductive/abductive, and valid/sound/cogent
  3. Strength of conclusion — how much support
  4. Why all three are needed.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is a valid deductive argument always more persuasive than a strong inductive or abductive one?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. Define all three forms precisely
  3. Test the green-cow case against a strong induction
  4. Weigh certainty against novelty
  5. Judgement using a concrete example.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: The three arguments ahead in this unit use three different forms of inference. Before meeting any of them, predict which form you expect to find LEAST persuasive, and why.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Metaphysics of God booklets runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Metaphysics of God booklets — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Metaphysics of God booklets is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan today's Q05 — thesis, all three forms defined, the green-cow test, judgement with a concrete example.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying what each kind of argument is, with an example. AO2 is asking: what does it give you, and what does it cost? Never just say 'it is valid' — say what valid does and does not prove.
09

Watch

Metaphysics of God revision — watch for the three families of argument in one video — RPEwithDrT, 47:56

▶Metaphysics of God revision · 47 min
Watch for: the three families of argument in one video — RPEwithDrT, 47:56↗▶Aquinas and the cosmological · 10 min
Watch for: a posteriori arguments explained — CrashCourse, 10:26↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say what 'valid' and 'sound' mean, in your own words.
  2. Give one example of your own for each kind: deduction, induction, abduction.
  3. Say the three tests in the argument lens.

Challenge

Argue: Which kind of argument do you expect the ontological argument, next lesson, to use — and what price will it pay?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying what each kind of argument is, with an example. AO2 is asking: what does it give you, and what does it cost? Never just say 'it is valid' — say what valid does and does not prove.